Costs of Public Pharmaceutical Services in Rio de Janeiro Compared to Farmácia Popular Program / Custos da assistência farmacêutica pública frente ao Programa Farmácia Popular

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To analyze the costs of public pharmaceutical services compared to Farmácia Popular Program (Popular Pharmacy Program). METHODS Comparison between prices paid by Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular Program (Farmácia Popular is available here) with the full costs of medicine provision by the Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro. The comparison comprised 25 medicines supplied by both the municipal pharmaceutical service and Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular Program. Calculating the cost per pharmaceutical unit of each medicine included expenditure by Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro with procurement (price), logistics, and local dispensation. The reference price of medicines paid by Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular was taken from the Brazilian Ministry of Health standard in force in 2012. Comparisons included full reference price; reference price minus 10.0% copayment by users; and maximum reference paid by the Ministry of Health (minus copayment and taxes). Simulations were carried out of the differences between the costs of Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro with the common medicines and those potentially incurred based on the reference price of Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular. RESULTS The Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro spent R$28,526,526.57 with 25 medicines of the common list in 2012; 58.7% accounted for direct procurement costs. The estimated costs of the Health Department were generally lower than the reference prices of the Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular Program for 20 medicines, regardless of reference prices. The potential costs incurred by Health Department if expenditure of its consumption pattern were based on the reference prices of Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular would be R$124,170,777.76, considering the best scenario of payment by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (90.0% of the reference price, minus taxes). CONCLUSIONS The difference in costs between public provision by Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro and Farmácia Popular Program indicates that some reference prices could be reviewed aiming at their reduction.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Analisar custos da assistência farmacêutica pública frente ao Programa Farmácia Popular. MÉTODOS Comparação entre os valores pagos pelo Programa Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular com os custos integrais relativos à provisão de medicamentos pela Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro. A comparação compreendeu 25 medicamentos, comuns tanto à provisão pela assistência farmacêutica pública municipal quanto pelo Programa Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular. O cálculo do custo unitário por unidade farmacotécnica de cada medicamento envolveu os gastos da Secretaria Municipal de Saúde com custos de aquisição (preço), logísticos e com a dispensação em nível local. O valor de referência dos medicamentos pago pelo Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular foi extraído da norma ministerial em vigor em 2012. As comparações envolveram o valor de referência pleno; valor de referência com desconto dos 10,0% pagos de contrapartida pelos usuários; e valor de referência máximo pago pelo Ministério da Saúde (descontados contrapartida e sem impostos).Foram realizadas simulações das diferenças entre os gastos da Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro com os medicamentos do elenco comum e os que seriam incorridos se esses tivessem sido executados com base no valor de referência do Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular. RESULTADOS A Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro gastou R$28.526.526,57 com 25 medicamentos do rol comum em 2012; 58,7% corresponderam a custos diretos com a aquisição dos produtos. Os custos estimados da Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro foram, em geral, menores que os valores de referência do Programa Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular em 20 medicamentos, independentemente dos valores de referência. Os custos que seriam incorridos pela Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro, caso seu padrão de consumo tivesse como valor de pagamento os valores de referência do Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular seriam de R$124.170.777,76 considerando a melhor situação de pagamento pelo Ministério da Saúde (90,0% do valor de referência, com impostos descontados). CONCLUSÕES A diferença de custos entre a provisão pública pela Secretaria Municipal de Saúde do Rio de Janeiro e o Programa Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular sinaliza que alguns valores de referência poderiam ser objetos de exame para sua redução.

Costo de oportunidad en hombres que acuden a las unidades de medicina familiar en la ciudad de Querétaro, México / Opportunity cost for men who visit family medicine units in the city of Querétaro, Mexico

OBJETIVO: Determinar el costo de oportunidad en hombres que solicitan atención en las unidades de medicina familiar (UMF) del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) en la ciudad de Querétaro. MÉTODOS: Se seleccionó una muestra de 807 hombres de 20 a 59 años de edad que solicitaban atención en los servicios de medicina familiar, laboratorio y farmacia, proporcionados por UMF del IMSS en Querétaro. Se excluyeron los pacientes referidos a urgencias y los que se retiraron sin recibir atención. La muestra (n = 807) se calculó mediante la fórmula de promedios para población infinita, con un intervalo de confianza de 95 por ciento (IC95 por ciento) y un costo de oportunidad promedio de US$ 5,5 para medicina familiar, US$ 3,1 para laboratorio y de US$ 2,3 para farmacia. Las estimaciones incluyeron el tiempo invertido en traslado, espera y atención; el número de acompañantes, y el costo del minuto para la actividad remunerada y no remunerada. El costo de oportunidad se calculó a través del costo por minuto estimado para traslado, espera y atención de pacientes y acompañantes. RESULTADOS: El costo de oportunidad correspondiente al traslado del paciente se estimó en US$ 0,97 (IC95 por ciento: 0,81-1,15), mientras que el de espera fue de US$ 5,03 (IC95 por ciento: 4,08-6,09) en medicina familiar, US$ 0,06 (IC95 por ciento: 0,05-0,08) en farmacia y US$ 1,89 (IC95 por ciento: 1,56- 2,25) en laboratorio. El costo de oportunidad promedio cuando el paciente acudió sin compañía osciló entre US$ 1,10 para el servicio de farmacia solo y US$ 8,64 para medicina familiar, farmacia y laboratorio. El costo de oportunidad ponderado para medicina familiar fue de US$ 6,24. CONCLUSIONES: Dado que el costo de oportunidad de los hombres que demandan servicios en las unidades de medicina familiar corresponde a más de la mitad de un salario mínimo, desde el enfoque institucional correspondería establecer si esa es la mejor alternativa de atención.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the opportunity cost for men who seek care in the family medicine units (FMU) of the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social) in the city of Querétaro. METHODS: A sample was selected of 807 men, ages 20 to 59 years, who sought care through the family medicine, laboratory, and pharmacy services provided by the FMU at the IMSS in Querétaro. Patients referred for emergency services and those who left the facilities without receiving care were excluded. The sample (n = 807) was calculated using the averages for an infinite population formula, with a confidence interval of 95 percent (CI95 percent) and an average opportunity cost of US$5.5 for family medicine, US$3.1 for laboratory services, and US$2.3 for pharmacy services. Estimates included the amount of time spent on travel, waiting, and receiving care; the number of people accompanying the patient, and the cost per minute of paid and unpaid job activities. The opportunity cost was calculated using the estimated cost per minute for travel, waiting, and receiving care for patients and their companions. RESULTS: The opportunity cost for the patient travel was estimated at US$0.97 (CI95 percent: 0.81-1.15), while wait time was US$5.03 (CI95 percent: 4.08-6.09) for family medicine, US$0.06 (CI95 percent: 0.05-0.08) for pharmacy services, and US$1.89 (CI95 percent: 1.56-2.25) for laboratory services. The average opportunity cost for an unaccompanied patient visit varied between US$1.10 for pharmacy services alone and US$8.64 for family medicine, pharmacy, and laboratory services. The weighted opportunity cost for family medicine was US$6.24. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the opportunity cost for men who seek services in FMU corresponds to more than half of a minimum salary, it should be examined from an institutional perspective whether this is the best alternative for care.

Avaliação econômica do seguimento farmacoterapêutico em pacientes com diabetes melito tipo 2 em farmácias comunitárias / Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapeutic follow-up in type 2 diabetic mellitus patients in community pharmacies

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os resultados econômicos do seguimento farmacoterapêutico (SFT) em pacientes com diabetes melito tipo 2 em farmácias comunitárias privadas do sistema suplementar de Saúde. MÉTODOS: Foi realizado estudo clínico prospectivo com 161 pacientes separados em dois grupos, dos quais somente um recebeu SFT durante 12 meses. A partir dos resultados, foram calculados os dados de efetividade e os custos. O desfecho primário foi a avaliação econômica do SFT por meio da utilização de um indicador de efetividade (variação de hemoglobina glicada), relacionada aos custos do atendimento farmacêutico. Os desfechos secundários foram os valores de pressão arterial, circunferência abdominal e índice de massa corporal dos pacientes, que foram utilizados e relacionados a custos do atendimento do farmacêutico. RESULTADOS: Foi observada uma redução adicional de 1,3 por cento da HbA1 no grupo que recebeu SFT em comparação ao grupo controle. Os custos anuais por paciente do grupo SFT relacionados à redução de 1 por cento nos valores da HbA1 foram de R$ 78,83. Para melhoria no controle dos pacientes diabéticos tipo 2, esse recurso pode ser implementado com o investimento anual médio de R$ 456,05 por paciente, utilizando SFT e monitorização com testes de glicemia. CONCLUSÕES: É possível obter redução da HbA1 para níveis desejados por meio da utilização do SFT. Este pode ser considerado um recurso adicional para o alcance do controle metabólico, resultando, nesse estudo, em um custo de R$ 76,00 paciente/ano, para redução de 1 por cento nos valores da HbA1.

OBJECTIVE: Assess economics results of Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up (PF) in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 in community pharmacies from additional Health system. METHODS: In a prospective clinic study, 161 patients were divided into two groups, of which only one group received PF for 12 months. From the results, we calculated data of effectiveness and costs. The primary endpoint was the economic evaluation PF by using an indicator of effectiveness (changes in glycated hemoglobin), which was related to the costs of pharmaceutical care. Secondary endpoints were values of blood pressure, waist circumference and body mass index of patients, also related to costs of pharmaceutical care. RESULTS: A real reduction of 1.3 percent of HbA1 was observed in the PF group, in comparison to control group. The annual cost of the reduction in 1 percent in HbA1 values in the PF group patients was $45.15. This feature to improve the control of type 2 diabetic patients can be implemented with annual investments of about $225.76 per patient, using PF and monitoring of blood glucose test. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to reduce the HbA1 values to desired levels by using PF. This can be considered an additional resource for the attainment of metabolic control, resulting in this study a cost of $37.62 per patient, per year, to reduce 1 percent in the HbA1 values.

Establishment of drug chests in commune health stations in Vietnam, Bamako Initiative.

In remote areas in Vietnam essential drugs are often not available. Some of the reasons are inadequate resources and failure of distribution. All activities at the health stations are very weak, partly because of inappropriate usage of drugs and lack of fund for buying drugs. The object of the project was to establish sustainable provision of essential drugs for commune health stations in rural areas, to teach the health personnel the importance of essential drugs and to create incentives for the staff and a certain surplus for other health activities. Four District Health Centers (DHC) and 10 Health Stations (HS), 2-4 in each DHC were selected. A pharmacist was made monitor of the project. The health personnel were trained in proper use of drugs, drug prescription, price setting, book keeping and management of pharmacy. Written guidelines were produced. One person was responsible for the drug chest at each HS. After recognizing the aim of the project and signing the contract by which the responsible person was bound, the initial capital was given free. The DHC was responsible for the supervision and advice to the HS. Reporting on prescribed drugs, buying and selling price, profit and fund left took place monthly. Monitoring of recovery of capital, turnover rate, rate of essential drugs and incentives for staff were monitored on forms and quarterly collected by the monitor on his visits. The HS were visited half-yearly by a steering group. All ten HS had been able to establish and maintain the pharmacy and to fully recover or even increase the capital and to create a surplus. Seven out of ten HSs had a turnover rate of more than one. The rate of essential drugs sold was more than 60% in seven pharmacies. The interest rate of 18% on average was used for incentives for staff, to provide drugs for those who cannot pay and for equipment for the HS. The cooperation between the DHC and the HS became closer. Establishment of drug chests seems to be a reasonable strategy of reinforcing primary health. Much attention should be paid on training of staff, monitoring, supervision and integration of health services.